Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

It's unlikely that they are. However, that does not mean they have anything to do with the aliens your religious views are based on. On what grounds can you say all those sightings weren't of fairies? That seems quite closed-minded of you. Or have you disproven the existence of fairies?

I think fairies count as "intelligent U.F.O.'s"...

 

[Stray Cat]

All of the reports can't bee 100% inaccurate.

Then the question would be what criteria do you use to determine which are accurate?

Because appeals to authority and argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) isn't really a sound basis to use.

Without a solid litmus test for determining the accuracy of eye witness accounts, they most all be treat with the possibility of inaccuracy, which although this does not make them totally irrelevant, a case resting solely upon them is not solid. And yet we see time after time UFOlogists making solid conclusions out of eye witness accounts.

 

[tsig]

The whole thread misses the mark.

1) It's a skeptic's forum so the debate is a wee bit biased
2) One side has closed it's mind to possibility and the other already "knows", it's about the same as the sound of one hand clapping.

Holds up hand.

 

[tsig]

I'd reference you to the post that got me 'suspended'.

Were one, not you or anyone else in particular, to stand on a railroad track, and IGNORE that your senses are telling you that emanate death approaches...
It isn't going to end well for you.

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...

Ignore your senses at your peril 'I' say.

That's not a train, that's a hologram.

 

[tsig]

I'd reference you to the post that got me 'suspended'.

Were one, not you or anyone else in particular, to stand on a railroad track, and IGNORE that your senses are telling you that emanate death approaches...

It isn't going to end well for you.

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...
Ignore your senses at your peril 'I' say.

These trained spotters, are their eyes tuned to a different color spectrum? Are their brains wired differently than most?

 

[Aepervius]

Where a child sees a monster's shadow on the wall, an adult will see a tree's shadow.

Experience being the great divider...

To the untrained eye, a falling star can be seen as a U.F.O., and so on.

That said, when a novice plane spotter and eager amateur astronomer reports that he and a friend both saw "star like object make right angle turns, while maintaining a constant speed", then I lean toward accepting the report of an actuality.

All of the reports can't bee 100% inaccurate.

Fancy that, I see adult seeing monster / saints / jesus shadow on wall or water stain all the time. Interresting on how those adult make the same error as kids, isn't it ? Might it be because we are programmed to recognize certain patern, independentely of whether there is something beyond random stuff in it ? Nnaaan. gotta be alien and monster and jesus.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I think fairies count as "intelligent U.F.O.'s"...

How would you know? Perhaps they're as intelligent as birds. Just because you saw a light doesn't mean you can know the details of what the thing is.

 

[King of the Americas]

How would you know? Perhaps they're as intelligent as birds. Just because you saw a light doesn't mean you can know the details of what the thing is.

Flying in coordination, in formation, or in unison with one another is, IN MY MIND, an indication of intelligence.

When 2 fly at each other combine to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves, and then split apart again, then I think "Yep, that's better that we can muster."

Birds and planes swoop as they turn. They 'bank'. Even with thrust vectoring, neither our planes nor our pilots can make 90 degree turns at a constant speed.

 

[tsig]

No.there is something intelligent in our heavens

MY senses have told 'me' that , that isn't us. These U.F.O's are more capable that we are, technologically speaking.

I trust my eyes, and the reports of others who have seen similar object throughout the ages.

So, based on the reality I perceive, I accept that they ARE 'up there'.

Now, I'd like to know how to get them to come down.

If there is something intelligent in our heavens the hilited is obvious.

 

[tsig]

Weakening someone's points or attempting to claim the findings are unimportant, is not proving someone wrong.

How would you do it then?

 

[tsig]

Flying in coordination, in formation, or in unison with one another is, IN MY MIND, an indication of intelligence.

When 2 fly at each other combine to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves, and then split apart again, then I think "Yep, that's better that we can muster."

Birds and planes swoop as they turn. They 'bank'. Even with thrust vectoring, neither our planes nor our pilots can make 90 degree turns at a constant speed.

Birds do it.

 

[Aepervius]

Flying in coordination, in formation, or in unison with one another is, IN MY MIND, an indication of intelligence.

When 2 fly at each other combine to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves, and then split apart again, then I think "Yep, that's better that we can muster."

Birds and planes swoop as they turn. They 'bank'. Even with thrust vectoring, neither our planes nor our pilots can make 90 degree turns at a constant speed.

You don't need much intelligence to get flock behavior. You only need 3 rules which don't need much brain than eye-muscle coordination :
1) you need to have an overall direction you want to go
2) you need to avoid your next bird in the flock
3) you need to go in the direction of your average neighbor (not even the remote one).

And hopla you get flock behavior ! It is not that they are going in unisson , it is simply that a few simple rule LEAD to the behavior observed.

By the way before you say I am saying stupid stuff, look up on flock behavior, or even BOID simulation.

PS: insect with not many neurone do it too. So "intelligence" ... hu. No.

 

[King of the Americas]

You don't need much intelligence to get flock behavior. You only need 3 rules which don't need much brain than eye-muscle coordination :
1) you need to have an overall direction you want to go
2) you need to avoid your next bird in the flock
3) you need to go in the direction of your average neighbor (not even the remote one).

And hopla you get flock behavior ! It is not that they are going in unisson , it is simply that a few simple rule LEAD to the behavior observed.

By the way before you say I am saying stupid stuff, look up on flock behavior, or even BOID simulation.

PS: insect with not many neurone do it too. So "intelligence" ... hu. No.

Birds don't have 'lights'...

So when you get some formation flying fireflies, give me a call.

 

[Aepervius]

Birds don't have 'lights'...

So when you get some formation flying fireflies, give me a call.

What's your telephon number ? Because I saw it often when I was at my parents home as a kid. ETA: and since the pond is still there I betcha I could film it when the season come.

BTW I am not pretending it was firefly (in the case quoted earlier), only pointing out that you are dismissing possibility out of ignorance.

 

[Paul2]

Agreed.

So to say "ALL reports of intelligently piloted U.F.O.'s are indeed a failure of someone's senses" would be wrong at least half the time....

Do you see the complete and utter fallacy that is what you wrote?

I don't care about any other argument, your whole point, and other sub-point - whatever - just focus on that one statement you made above. Do see how wrong it is?

It's like saying "I could go to my friend's house today, or I might not go to my friend's house today, so the odds of me doing it are 50%." It completely ignores factors that might actually influence whether I go to my friend's house today. If, for instance, I'm very busy at work, it's likely I won't have time to go to my friend's house, which is an actual factor that reduces the likelihood.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Flying in coordination, in formation, or in unison with one another is, IN MY MIND, an indication of intelligence.

When 2 fly at each other combine to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves, and then split apart again, then I think "Yep, that's better that we can muster."

Birds and planes swoop as they turn. They 'bank'. Even with thrust vectoring, neither our planes nor our pilots can make 90 degree turns at a constant speed.

So what if birds can't do it? We're talking about stupid fairies here. Fairies that fly in formations and emit light.

I think this theory is much more sensible than yours.

 

[King of the Americas]

So what if birds can't do it? We're talking about stupid fairies here. Fairies that fly in formations and emit light.

I think this theory is much more sensible than yours.

No.

'I' was talking about star-like objects moving in concert with one another, performing aerial feats beyond human capability.

 

[Stray Cat]

No.

'I' was talking about star-like objects moving in concert with one another, performing aerial feats beyond human capability.

But you do know that one certain 'human capability' is 'fallibility' don't you?

Even your own, regardless of how much you deny it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

No.

'I' was talking about star-like objects moving in concert with one another, performing aerial feats beyond human capability.

Right. Just as fairies are known to do. Try to keep up, would you?

 

[Correa Neto]

This area is one I grew up around, and have seen all manner of craft fly over, as there are more than one airstrip nearby. I myself have flown over this area, more than once.

So, "Yes, I had some knowledge of where in the sky these things were."

There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. The main one is that it completely ignores the possibility of you ever being mistaken. It means you are absolutely, completely aware of all situations capable of creating confusion and absolutely completely aware of all conventional crafts and natural phenomena above you. You are never mistaken, not even by an odd angle or weird observing conditions. The way I see it, it doesn't matter how small the odds of you being mistaken are. The odds are always there and all it takes to create an UFO sighting is it happening a single time. Deny this and you will be completely close-minded and/or deluded.

Can you trust your senses? Sure, most of the times. But sometimes they fail. Take the case of the train you wrote about. Do you know why many people aret hit by trains? Because their senses fooled them. We were not shaped to be used to large fast-moving objects. We evolved in environments where large = slow. Thus, many people just can't figure out how fast the train actually is and the results can be fatal. Want an example? Go to an airport. Check how fast the take-off or landing speeds of an executive jet seems to be when compared with a large jet liner. However, the speeds are not that different. Your brain will, however, give you the impression that the liner is slower than the executive jet.

Are you fully aware of all craft and phenomena on the sky? Are you trained to the point of never being wrong or mistaken? Can anyone honestly claim to be so skilled? I say no.

Two cases to ponder:

Do you think its possible that trained millitary observers, in a crucial combat reccon mission, would confuse a tanker or cargo ship with an aircraft carrier? Note that besides the training, these guys also probably had recognition guides and binoculars.

What would you think of someone remembering seeing in Europe, back in the mid-50´s, a craft looking like a F-16 with canards?

Now, an (anecdotal) example. I am very used to flying. For a number of years, I've been flying the same route twice a week. Most of the times seated by the windows, because I like the view (and its easier to take a nap). Day and night, I'm used to it. I also happen to be very used with it on the ground, since I also made the trip countless times by car or bus. I also made lots of field works at sites along this route. Heck, I am even used to satelliteand geophysical imagery of it. Its safe to say its an axis around which my life revolves since the 80's. I am also a bit of an aviantion buff. I like planes, I like to be informed about them, I like to watch them. And I love the night sky. Whenever I have a chance to look at it, I take it, especially far from city lights.

Does it means I have never been mistaken? No. I've seen lights I have no idea what they were. Heck, sometimes I could not even tell they were on the sky or on the ground! A "sighting" some months ago was very instructive. I still have no idea of what it was. The interesting thing is that I used it to make an experiment. I made a sketch of "the object" as soon as I arrived home and stored it. Every month or so I make an excercise- I remember it the best I can an make a sketch. Then I compare with the first drawing. The differences are startling.

Here's another lesson for you- our memory also can play tricks on us. Your recollections of the experience may no longer be exact.

At last but not least, I must say that fireflys can indeed cause mistakes when flying directly above your head, especially if they are say, 10 or 20 meters away and there are no visual refferences clues. No, I am not saying you saw fireflys. I have no idea of what you actually saw. I just think that jumping to "aliens" is a hell of a jump.